I wonder though about a second referendum and how the Commissioner issue would play out. It might be that that particular ammunition was fired too soon in Lisbon 1.

CL, not sure that one can. It seems to me that it really is a matter of interpretation and/or bias. It’s like labour law (actually all law now I think of it). Gains may sometimes appear in practice to be reverses or vice versa.

“My basic point is that the Lisbon Treaty adds nothing to the existing state of neo-liberal policies in the EU.”-John Palmer,- (‘It takes a village idiot’ thread.)

Clearly the Lisbon Treaty cannot involve ‘intensifying neo-liberalism’ and also add ‘nothing to the existing state of neo-liberal policies in the EU.”

Can an empirical investigation reveal which statement is correct, or is it just a matter of interpretation?

Firstly, she said that in the negotiations leading up to the formulation of the treaty, there was great, even enormous disagreement among nations as to how the Commission would be composed with 27+ states in the EU.

She also pointed out that in her view, the compromise reached had the disadvantage of not being seen to be democratically legitimate in the context of a union of member states where each one has an equal role – regardless of whether it is legitimate or not as far as officials and politicians are concerned.

Rather bizarrely I thought at the time, she also made the point that some of the larger nations were only starting to realise – at the end of February – what the loss of a Commissioner on a rotational basis might mean for them.

Dick Roche, as we all know, fought to keep the current system.

Losing a commissioner for one five year term out of three is not a solution to the problem of the unhappy marriage of roles which characterise the Commission’s remit, because the problems are with the inherent conflict of interest. We cannot expect the individuals who act as, for want of a better term, glorified civil servants representing their departments in an avowedly non-political way to carry at the same time the mantle of proposing legislation, which democratic peoples in general expect their elected representatives to do on their behalf.

While this might have been a tidy proposal when the EU /EEC was in its infancy, surely this structure has been outgrown and needs to be dismantled and rebuilt in a manner that meets the needs of the people as well as the institutions. (Bearing in mind that in earlier days, bigger countries had 2 Commissioners…)

Until the Commission is no longer an elite bunch, it will be considered to be an elite bunch and that perception of elitism, if we’re naive enough to believe that it is merely a perception, is immensely damaging to the credibility of the EU.

Rotating the Commissioners is a nice solution, but it’s a solution to a different problem than that which urgently needs to be addressed.

If we are asked to vote a second time, elements of the No side who successfully played on public ignorance of the role of the Commissioner and/or public discomfort at the anachronistic and fundamentally indefensible nature of the Commission will find that the balls that they’ll be firing in Round Two have already been made for them by others.

I do now, Cheers, re solidnet…

COMMON STAND BY COMMUNIST PARTIES AND OTHER LEFT AND
PROGRESSIVE FORCES FROM EUROPE ON THE IRISH ‘NO’ TO THE
LISBON TREATY

The NO victory in Ireland puts an end to the Lisbon Treaty.

This result is of great importance and wide political
significance considering that it was achieved in the
context of huge pressures from the main leaders of the
European Union and constitutes a significant defeat of the
project of intensifying neo-liberalism and militarism in
Europe and of the design, pursued by the governments and
the big economic and financial groups, of a European Union
as a directorate of the great powers.

The communist parties and other left and progressive forces
within the EU salute the working class and the entire Irish
people for their valuable contribution in putting a stop to
the course followed by this Treaty and are overjoyed with
the result, which demands an immediate suspension of the
ratification processes. They also warn that there is no
room for delaying manoeuvres aiming to bypass the rejection
of the Treaty, as in 2005 following the NO victory in
France and in the Netherlands, and denounce the
anti-democratic nature of this whole process.

They express their determination to continue the struggle
for a Europe committed to social justice, to solidarity and
cooperation among peoples and countries, a Europe of peace
among sovereign States, equal in rights.

They further stress their commitment to the developing and
supporting the ongoing important struggles in several
European countries in defence of social and labour rights
and to raising a strong barrier against the neo-liberal
capitalist offensive embodied in the now defeated Treaty.

The Parties:

Left Party in Sweden
Communist Party of Luxembourg
Communist Party of Ireland
Workers Party of Ireland
German Communist Party
Workers Party of Belgium
Communist Party of Britain
Communist Party in Denmark
Communist Party of Spain
Communist Party of Finland
French Communist Party
Communist Party of Greece
New Communist Party of Netherlands
Hungarian Communist Workers’ Party
Party of the Italian Communists
Portuguese Communist Party
Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia

Lisbon, June 2008.

Yeah it would be, although I never really made it, because I never really cared about it

Though I largely agree with Claire.